Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by the death of a police officer cut down in the line of duty, and our hearts go out to his family, friends, and coworkers. We all want to see justice for victims and for society for such a tragic loss. Yet, we must leave the search for justice to our courts to apply our constitutional system of administering justice. There have been advocates and interested parties on both sides of the issue of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case from the beginning. Regardless of one's views of the merits or the lack of merits of this case, the contentions in the pending case, the Congress of the United States is not the proper forum to debate or determine the merits of this case. The existing appealable issues in the case are now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Congress should not attempt to wield the court's gavel or presuppose its decision. And this is not an automatic go-through-the-motions appeal. The Federal District Court upheld the conviction, though it did overturn the death penalty in the case. Abu-Jamal is appealing the part of the case upholding the conviction; the State is appealing the part overturning the death sentence. So there are clearly judicial issues on both sides, and Congress should not interject itself on a matter pending before a court of law established to resolve the merits of legal issues. I thought we had learned from the Terry Schiavo case why Congress should not seek to serve as a judicial appeal arena on emotionally charged issues. Of course, the recent record reflects issues to strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to even hear cases related to emotion- laden issues, which would suggest that we have not learned our lesson. But I do remain hopeful. Let the judiciary do its job. Any suggestion that the legislative branch can or should fix or have a say in a pending case before the courts not only demeans the judicial branch, but it diminishes respect for the law. Nor should Congress seek to respond to or otherwise address the actions of a municipality in a foreign sovereign nation, and certainly not in the matter contemplating holding the nation accountable for the ministerial actions of its subordinate jurisdictions, as this resolution attempts to do. We should not expect the United States to be urged by a foreign legislative body, as the resolution says, to take appropriate action against one of our municipalities when the foreign government disagrees with the action taken by one of those cities. There are many advocates for overturning the death sentence in this case, here in the United States as well as other countries. I understand some of those advocates are planning a rally in Philadelphia on December 9, the anniversary of his arrest. The city of Philadelphia will undoubtedly approve a permit for that rally. Now, are we going to pass a resolution condemning the city of Philadelphia for approving a rally in favor of Abu-Jamal, or should we take Federal action appropriate against the city for taking that action? We also know that the city of San Francisco has made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen. Are we going to take Federal action against San Francisco because of that action? And what standard are we setting by this resolution? Municipalities around the world and right here in the United States take actions that many of us may disagree with. You would think that some in Congress would agree or disagree with many of the resolutions passed by municipalities expressing their opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act or their opposition to the war in Iraq. Are we going to urge the United States to take appropriate action against those cities for criticizing the United States and its military actions? And do we create the opposite effect of the apparent attempt of the resolution by calling even more attention to the otherwise obscure event that is the subject of this resolution? Frankly, I had never heard of the action of the city of St. Denis before I saw this resolution, and I suspect few people in the United States or anywhere else had ever heard of this action. By complaining about those giving attention to the case and the issues through this resolution, we are simply giving more attention to it. The death penalty is a controversial issue in this country and around the world. It is an issue of conscience by many here as well as abroad, regardless of how heinous a crime for which someone may have been sentenced to death. The United States is one of few major countries in the world where the death penalty is still applied. Amnesty International and other human rights groups criticize the United States policies on the death penalty as inhumane and inconsistent with international human rights standards, and we encounter many difficulties in getting international cooperation because of it. When we try to have a captured capital crime defendant extradited from another country back to the United States, we routinely face opposition from countries of origin and other countries because we have the death penalty. In fact, a letter from St. Denis has mentioned their opposition to the death penalty as one of the reasons for their action. And so we should not be shocked by those who are facing death penalties when they are designated as martyrs of what some consider to be a barbaric and archaic practice. Mr. Speaker, because we should not, as the resolution says, urge the Government of France to take appropriate action against the city of St. Denis, when we haven't even done the same against cities right here in the United States, and because this case is pending in the Third Circuit, we should reject this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5466. Next year the Commonwealth of Virginia and our great Nation will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first English permanent settlement in North America. Designating the Captain John Smith National Chesapeake Historical Trail is an important component of this historic celebration. The trail traces the route of Captain John Smith on his exploration voyage of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Captain Smith and his crew of just one dozen men traveled nearly 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay, and it was Captain John Smith's 1612 map which was the first accurate depiction of the Chesapeake Bay region. Next year the entire world will help us celebrate this historic anniversary, and Virginia is preparing a year-long celebration. The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will highlight the Chesapeake Bay, and the passage of the bill prior to the 400th anniversary celebration is extremely important. I would like to thank the bill's sponsor, my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) for her distinguished leadership in this effort. I would also like to thank the House leadership and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle for working to bring this important bill to the floor before the House adjourns. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an institution in my hometown of Newport News. On December 1, 2006, the members of Ivy Baptist Church celebrated their 100th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to highlight the rich history of this church and its contribution to our community. In 1906, Rev. James Carr, along with Shaddy Clark and J.B. Peyton founded the first ancestor of the Ivy Baptist Church of today. It was called the First Baptist Church Dawson City. First Baptist Dawson was a blessing in a community plagued by crime in a city nicknamed ``Blood Field.'' In 1915, under the leadership of Reverend Carr, the First Baptist Church Dawson City building was purchased for $350 in cash. Rev. Samuel Brown, the second pastor, moved the church to the 500 block of 18th Street in Newport News and renamed it the 18th Street Baptist Church. In 1923, the church elected its third pastor, Rev. James M. Bray. After 27 years of growth, witnessing and fellowship under Reverend Bray, the church sold its building at 18th Street, and a new church was built at 1612 Ivy Avenue at the cost of $60,000. Based on this change of location, the church was renamed Ivy Avenue Baptist Church in 1952. In 1958, the Reverend D.L. Charity became the fourth pastor of Ivy Avenue Baptist Church. The church continued to experience substantial growth with new programs implemented by Reverend Charity, who served for 8 years. On February 4, 1968, Rev. Dr. W. Henry Maxwell was selected as the fifth pastor of Ivy Avenue Baptist Church. Three years later, a new house of worship located at 50 Maple Avenue was purchased, and the first worship service was conducted there in February 1972. In order to maintain the heritage of the church, but to reflect the church's location change, the name was shortened from Ivy Avenue Baptist, to the Ivy Baptist we know today. Under Reverend Maxwell, Ivy Baptist continued to flourish. A church day care center was established in 1974, and a multipurpose annex named the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center was opened in 1999. After 36 years of faithful service to Ivy Baptist Church, Reverend Maxwell retired. After a year-long search, Rev. Kevin G. Swann was elected the sixth pastor of Ivy Baptist Church. The church has already experienced significant growth in membership under Reverend Swann, and I believe he will live up to the legacy left to him. Over these 100 years, pastors at Ivy have licensed nine other pastors, and ordained nine pastors to the ministry. The day care program is popular throughout the community, and the Family Life Center is a community asset under constant demand as a venue for various church, civic and social programs. I would like to once again congratulate Reverend Swann and the members of Ivy Baptist on their centennial and I wish them another century of continued service to their community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 3880 is a companion bill to H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It reflects a compromise bill arrived at after considerable effort of a bipartisan group involving both House and Senate Judiciary Committee staff over several months. From hearings in the House and from other reports, we have learned that current Federal law designed to protect animal enterprises have been proven to be reasonably effective in protecting animal enterprises. However, serious gaps and loopholes have been identified in current law with respect to protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises. Present law protects employees of an animal enterprise, but we have found that employees, board members and family members of businesses and nonprofits affiliated with or doing business with such enterprises are complaining that they are now being stalked, harassed, intimidated or threatened, with some individuals even being physically assaulted, and had their homes, businesses or cars vandalized. Since the Animal Enterprise Terrorism law was enacted in 1992, there have been some 1,100 complaints of such incidents, with property losses reported of being more than $120 million. Those complaining include farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnology industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions, magazines, newspapers and other advertising groups and others who are viewed as assisting or enabling targeted animal enterprises. The evidence is that in many instances extremist elements among the animal rights groups are taking advantage of the fact that the animal enterprise laws do not cover affiliates and associates by using threats, harassment, intimidation and fear and other extreme tactics to pressure them into severing their activities with such enterprises. S. 3880 is designed to cover these gaps or loopholes by providing to employees, businesses and associates of animal enterprises similar protections to those already covered. In other words, the bill prevents a person from doing indirectly to an animal enterprise what they are prohibited to do directly. Now, citizens engaging in legitimate animal enterprise activities and anyone associated with them are entitled to be protected from criminal acts and to be able to go about their daily activities free from threats to their person or property and that of their family and associates. State laws are generally good at providing those protections. However, the interstate nature of the planning and execution of the criminal harassment tactics used by some individuals or groups skilled at exploiting gaps or weaknesses in the laws have made it difficult for States to get at problems effectively. That is why this bill is deemed necessary. While we must protect those engaged in animal enterprises, we must also protect the right of those engaged in first amendment freedoms of expression regarding such enterprises. It goes without saying that first amendment freedoms of expression cannot be defeated by statute. However, to reassure anyone concerned with the intent of this legislation, we have added in the bill assurances that it is not intended as a restraint on freedoms of expression such as lawful boycotting, picketing or otherwise engaging in lawful advocacy for animals. In addition, we also wanted to recognize that there are some who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil disobedience. If a group's intention were to stage a sit-in or lie-down or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be breaking. But they should not be held more accountable for business losses due to causes such as delivery trucks being delayed any more than a boycott or protest against any other business. To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied. If there is no damage or economic loss, or damage or loss is less than $10,000, the offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony. This bill does not satisfy everyone, but it does represent a reasonable compromise in protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises while avoiding violation of first amendment freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. MR. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. First, we are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us, but we do know that he says he will not continue doing what he is doing unless we retroactively authorize it and immunize everyone who participated in the illegal activity from any criminal and civil liability. But for the New York Times disclosure that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations, we would not even know about it now. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are. Yet rather than finding out what is going on, we are moving forward with this legislation not only to authorize something in the future but to retroactively legalize whatever has been going on in the past. Yesterday, under the military tribunal bill, we authorized what had previously been considered torture and retroactively immunized everybody involved in it. Today, we do the same type of retroactive approval and immunization to what may be illegal domestic surveillance. The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, totally in secret, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court. So this is not a question of whether or not dangerous terrorists should be wiretapped. Of course they should, and they can be under present law, but in a democratic society with checks and balances, we should insist that some checks and balances occur, either before the wiretap or after the wiretap in the case of an emergency. This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well. This bill, therefore, should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6106. As the gentleman from Louisiana just mentioned, over a year ago our Nation experienced one of the worst natural disasters in our history when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated southeast Louisiana and parts of Mississippi. He mentioned that public and private schools were forced to close, and over 150,000 students were displaced as a direct result of those hurricanes. Last year, the Hurricane Education Recovery Act was enacted. It authorized the U.S. Secretary of Education to waive selected portions of general education law having to do with State or school district use of Federal funds. Unfortunately, the waiver is set to expire on September 30, even though the families continue to return to the area and their schools are in need of rebuilding. The waiver is critical because it allows school systems the flexibility to use available Federal funds for the most critical needs. Without the waiver, they would have funding for just about everything they need except those critical immediate needs required to reopen the schools. Without the waiver, they won't be able to spend the money for those critical needs. This waiver has worked well and just needs to be extended. On September 19, just a few days ago, H.R. 6106 to extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of Education was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal). This legislation is a straightforward extension of the Secretary of Education's waiver authority for an additional fiscal year through 2007. This bill would not have been possible without the hard work of not only the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) but his Louisiana colleagues, Mr. Melancon and Mr. Jefferson on this side, and I am sure there are others he might want to mention. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help Louisiana continue their recovery effort by supporting the passage of H.R. 6106. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts to establish a system of military commissions as required by the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case, I am disappointed that a bill of this magnitude is being considered under a closed rule and without assurances that traditional notions of due process, judicial independence, and full compliance with the Geneva Conventions will be in the bill. One of the most egregious problems of this bill is the creation of a presumption in favor of admitting coerced evidence, along with the continued insistence that a person can be fairly convicted using secret evidence. Another problem with the bill is it strips jurisdictions of civil courts from hearing cases involving plaintiffs who seek redress for violations of the torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions. This bill actually retroactively applies new standards. Now, whether this review of the habeas corpus as statutory or constitutional, it is a good idea; and it is the only way anybody can get a hearing on whether or not they have been tortured by the United States. Moreover, the only automatic right of appeal would be to an entirely new appellate court of military commission review, with all of the judges appointed by and in the chain of command of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense would be granted wide latitude to depart without judicial scrutiny from the rules and detainee protections the legislation purports to create. It would allow him to do so whenever he deems it practicable or consistent with military or intelligence activities. In an extraordinary move, the bill would retroactively limit the scope of U.S. obligations under common article 3 more than half a century after the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions, and it immunizes all previous violations of the War Crimes Act and other laws against torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in our custody. This retroactive provision grants immunity to government officials and civilians, such as CIA operatives, interrogators, or those who may have authorized, ordered, or even participated in illegal acts of torture or abuse. Mr. Speaker, this is a complex bill, and it is before us on a take- it-or-leave-it basis, with no amendments. We should take the time to consider all of these new provisions deliberately to ensure that the legislation does not undermine the United States' commitment to the rule of law, the success of its fight against terrorism, and, most of all, the safety of our United States' servicemen and women. I urge my colleagues to defeat the passage of H.R. 6166.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that letters from over a dozen organizations in opposition to this bill be entered into the Record to the extent that some of them have not been entered in the Record so far.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, any time you name a bill using the words ``veterans memorials'' and ``religious protection,'' you can assume that we are just about to cut veterans health care. Now, if we are going to deal with veterans issues, I would hope that we would fully fund the veterans health care VA expenditures rather than cut them. We ought to do more for veterans pensions, we ought to do more for veterans disability, rather than naming a bill which undermines the freedoms they actually fought for. Thirty years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress recognized the importance of passing a law to ensure that those who suffer violations of their constitutional rights or unconstitutional discrimination will be able to obtain legal representation to vindicate their civil rights; but only in cases where they actually win the case will they be able to get help with their attorneys fees. This bill would rescind the ability of victims whose rights under part of the first amendment have been found to have been violated from receiving reimbursement for attorneys fees and costs. This means that only the most fortunate in our society will be able to enforce their civil rights and seek redress when those rights are violated. It means that the less fortunate can only get those rights if they can raise enough money to enforce them. When the cost of enforcement becomes too great, there will not be any private enforcement and then our constitutional rights will be reduced to hollow pronouncements for the average citizens because only the wealthy will be able to seek enforcement. But this bill goes actually further, because the bill will specifically deprive victims whose rights have been found to be violated by a court and those whose rights continue to be violated after the court has ordered, from being able to seek remedies other than those provided in the bill, namely injunctive or declaratory relief. Now, if a school system were to decide to ignore the Constitution and require school children to recite a state-sponsored Protestant prayer in some areas, or a Mormon prayer in others, what would happen? Or if a State or locality were to just declare itself to have a particular established religion, what would happen under the bill? Nothing. Nothing would happen, until such time as you have a wealthy individual willing to fund a lawsuit to try to vindicate the obvious violation of their constitutional rights. In all other classrooms and all other localities where you don't have a wealthy individual to fund the lawsuit, nothing will happen, because the perpetrators of the violation will know that there is no sanction. Nothing can happen. The only thing that can happen is you just sit around and wait for a court to declare that you are in violation. Nothing else can happen. And even after that finding occurs, nothing will happen until the court actually starts enforcing the court order, and you will need additional attorneys fees to go in and get that order. This just invites violations of the law because we know there is no sanction for violating the first amendment. We know that the establishment clause, part of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, will be the only part of the Constitution without any remedy to effectively enforce the provisions of that Constitution. That is why virtually every civil rights group, religious organization and legal organization opposes the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I hope we oppose the bill too.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, this bill does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies and does nothing to stop a minor from crossing State lines to get an abortion on her own. Rather, it creates criminal penalties for those trusted confidants whom the woman turns to when she find herself in a difficult situation. In an ideal world, young women should turn to their parents for advice, guidance, and comfort. But in the real world, this is not always the case. And in some scenarios, parental involvement is not even in the best interest of the girl. This bill would impose criminal penalties on anyone who assists a young woman to cross a State line in order to obtain an abortion, whether it is a grandparent, an aunt, older sibling, or trusted friend. In addition, because of the way the law is written, it would even impose criminal penalties on a cab driver who drops off a young woman at an abortion clinic if that clinic happens to be across the State line. Further, there are unrealistic and unworkable mandates involving the notice provisions in the bill which also potentially violate principles of confidentiality. And so this bill threatens to increase the risk of harm to young women in difficult family situations by delaying access to appropriate medical care, and that is why the bill is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association. Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill raises numerous constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has made clear that any valid abortion law must have an adequate medical emergency exception. The Court has also ruled that access to medical care in emergencies must also be maintained. The provisions contained in the bill have limited access in situations, and so the bill is clearly inconsistent with established constitutional law. Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent. It does not prevent unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Rather, it encourages young girls to make difficult decisions on their own without help, increasing the potential harm to their physical and emotional well-being. That is why it is not supported by medical organizations with expertise in this field. Furthermore, it raises serious constitutional questions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5092. I join with the gentleman from North Carolina, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coble, in developing this bill, which will focus on improving the due process and effectiveness in ATF enforcement of Federal gun laws and regulations. Currently as many as 98 percent of violations cited by ATF against gun dealers result in nothing more than a letter of reprimand or meeting with ATF officials at their office, backed by some threats of revocation. There are complaints, on the one hand, that the enforcement system treats Federal firearms licensees unfairly by focusing too much on minor technical violations with threats of revocation. So, on the occasional, though rare, occasion, where the gun dealer's license is actually revoked for what is perceived to be a minor violation, it generates perceptions of unfairness and breeds disrespect of the regulatory process. If a violation is challenged, the system perpetuates a further appearance of unfairness by using ATF employees, responsible to their supervisors, to decide the case. On the other hand, there are complaints that ATF is unable to effectively license the licensees, because the only available sanction is revocation, and licensees note they are unlikely to be revoked for anything more than a serious violation. Therefore, they can be casual with a lesser violation since they are unlikely to receive anything less than a warning. H.R. 5092 addresses these problems with a system of intermediate sanctions, applied on a graduated basis. For violations the ATF designates as minor, the bill makes available to the ATF fines of up to $1,000, with cumulative fines up to $5,000 per inspection process. After two incidences of minor violations, suspensions up to 30 days are available. For violations designated as serious, there can be fines up to $2,500 per violation, up to $15,000 per inspection; and in addition to such fines, suspensions up to 90 days or revocation are also available. The ATF will decide by regulation what constitutes a minor violation or a major violation. But anything which actually endangers the public will count as a major violation. I would also note that, under the bill, any violation that results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person, or prevents the dealer from complying with gun tracing or anything like that, must be considered a major violation. Therefore, the suggestion that the bill allows for unaccounted-for guns to be treated as a minor violation is not true. To ensure fairness in the process, the bill revamps the hearing process by requiring that hearings be conducted by Administrative Law Judges. Mr. Speaker, in summary, for minor violations, virtually all of which are now treated with just a letter of reprimand or warning, the bill provides for substantial fines and treats repeat offenders with suspensions and/or additional fines. For major violations, the vast majority of which also result only in a letter of reprimand or a warning, the bill provides for even more substantial fines, longer suspensions or revocations. That will result in improved, fair and meaningful enforcement of our gun laws. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Maintaining school safety is an important objective of school administrators and communities around the country, but this bill will only serve to complicate the lives of school officials and probably violate students' Constitutional rights in the process. In 1969, the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969) that students do not ``shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.'' While Tinker was a free speech case, the principle applies here as well. The vague legislative language of H.R. 5295 would lead school officials to believe that they have the authority to conduct searches that could be at odds with the standards set out by the Supreme Court in the 1985 decision of New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the 1 guiding case on this issue, in which the Court attempted to strike a balance between student privacy and school discipline and safety. While this bill correctly requires that school officials have ``reasonable suspicion'' before conducting a search of a student, it describes too broadly the purpose and the scope of the search that school administrators can conduct. The bill incorrectly suggests that school officials can conduct random, wide scale searches of students without having any individualized suspicion that a particular student to be searched is participating in criminal activity or breaking the school rules. When schools officials do not focus student searches on individuals who are suspected of violating the law or school rules, the results of the searches are often fruitless. School administrators will do more to improve children's safety by concentrating on suspicious behavior and credible information from teachers and students that school rules or criminal laws are being broken, than by conducting widespread unsubstantiated searches. While this legislation is well intentioned, it nonetheless constitutes bad policy and is constitutionally unsound. Even if the language in the bill accurately reflects today's constitutional standards, Court decisions are often modified by subsequent decisions. School officials may therefore find themselves in the future caught between complying with an obsolete statute or obeying the modified Court decision and risking the loss of funding under this bill. School districts have a long history of abiding by search and seizure policies that are consistent with court rulings. This legislative directive is unnecessary and will only serve to further complicate the lives of students and teachers. This is the reason why the American Federation of Teachers, National School Board Association, the Council of the Great City Schools, the National PTA, the American Association of School Administrators and the ACLU all oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, because it will sacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution--the right to vote. Contrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by imposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal elections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo identification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in reality they will create an unprecedented regime of disenfranchisement aimed at seniors, minority voters, low income voters, students and voters with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes an undue burden on eligible voters. As the United States District Court found last year in Common Cause v. Billups, 406 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia law requiring ID at the polls, ``photo identification requirements unconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible American citizens.'' The district judge issued an immediate injunction against the law, likening it to a segregation-era poll tax because the digital picture ID would cost voters $20. The court found that these provisions disproportionately affect traditionally disenfranchised voters, including senior citizens, minority voters, poor voters, disabled voters and young voters. And the decisions keep coming. A state judge yesterday again rejected the Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, writing in his decision, ``This cannot be.'' In his ruling, the judge said that the law places too much of a burden on voters, and ``Any attempt by the legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny''. Lake v. Perdue, No. CV 119207 (Ga. Super. Ct. Sept. 19, 2006) In Michigan, the photo ID requirement was declared unconstitutional by the State's attorney general and his decision is now being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania, a similar voter ID bill was vetoed by the governor. Proponents of this bill claim that these draconian constraints are necessary to guard against identity fraud at the Nation's polling places. The truth, however tells a far different story. According to the United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871 votes cast since 2002, only about 80 voters were convicted of federal election fraud. Mr. Speaker, when we compare the number of eligible voters that will be disenfranchised because of this bill to the number of documented cases of fraud, it's clear that this bill will do more harm than good--the cure is clearly worse than the disease. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe that the same Congress that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act two months ago could now seriously contemplate passage of this bill. There is plenty that needs to be done to fix our electoral system, but instead of addressing problems that don't exist, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have a model system of choosing our elected officials--one that exemplifies the true principle of democracy and serves as an example to other nations around the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I rise in strong support of this resolution. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor, but also Clark Airfield in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of Americans died that day, but also thousands of Filipino soldiers lost their lives. This one act of war united the American and Filipino people in the noble cause of ending tyranny in the Pacific. In 1946, President Harry Truman cited that during the war the Philippine Army veterans ``fought with gallantry and courage under the most difficult conditions.'' He also declared that it was the ``moral obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of the Philippine Army veterans.'' In fact, it was with that promise that many of the veterans joined our military efforts, many losing their lives, others suffering lifetime injuries. Our promise, however, remains unfulfilled. We promised to make them eligible for veterans benefits, but, unfortunately, in 1946, Congress withdrew those benefits. Now, nearly 60 years later, our Filipino veterans are still looking to see our promise fulfilled. We saw some progress in 2003 when we passed the Veterans Benefit Act, which increased VA benefits for U.S. residents who are Filipino veterans and made the new Philippine Scouts living in the United States eligible for burial in VA national cemeteries. The United States is indebted to the 120,000 Filipino veterans of World War II for their extraordinary sacrifices. While we can never fully repay our veterans for the sacrifices made on our behalf, today we stop to remember those who gave their lives for our freedom and to thank those who are still with us for their courage and dedication to our country. Although no longer a territory of the United States, the Philippines and the United States are bound by the countless sacrifices the Filipino veterans made during World War II. We are also bound by countless contributions and achievements of Americans of Filipino descent in every field of human endeavor, including the sciences, business, education, medicine, the arts, athletics, and government. As the only Member of Congress with any Filipino ancestry, I am honored to come before the House today to honor the Filipino veterans of World War II and urge my colleagues not only to support this resolution, but to also pass legislation to grant the Filipino veterans the equity that they were promised

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and just acknowledge this amendment is just designed to preserve a few of the jobs that we have got left. The amendments that passed in 2000 and 2001 have cost. If they had not passed, we would have 9,000 more jobs than we have now. We have already lost jobs. We would have had a lot more jobs than we had. We are just trying to preserve job opportunities, which have been shown to reduce crime. Now, I know it has already been said that trying to reduce crime is misguided around here, but that is the goal of the bill, and everybody who has studied it knows that is what would happen. If you have more jobs, you will have less crime. That is all we are trying to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the level of service contracts now being performed by FPI to continue at that level while prohibiting further expansion. There is no mandatory source provision for service contracts so they are already competitive. Most of the contracts involve work that would otherwise be done offshore, so FPI's competition is with foreign workers, not Americans. There have been no complaints about service contracts. Service contracts constitute a significant portion of the inmate work opportunities now in the program. None of these authorities individually or combined in the bill will realistically produce sufficient work opportunities for inmates to replace the loss of jobs from the elimination of mandatory source and the loss of current service contract jobs. Stable FPI jobs are critical to the efficient and safe operation of Federal prisons and the rehabilitation of inmates which correlates directly with public safety. There is no record to suggest that this part of FPI is broken beyond the philosophical view that it represents some kind of unfair competition to American businesses and workers; but in this case, there is virtually no competition. The reality is that this is not true, and no one has suggested that FPI service contracts today have any significant impact on American businesses or workers. Let us at least continue the level of service contracts we have now in an effort to reduce crime in the future. We are trying to reduce crime, trying to help manage the prisons. This will be go a little way into preserving some of those opportunities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would close by saying this amendment would allow the Attorney General to make sure that there are enough jobs in the Federal Prison Industries to help manage the prisons. We know the more jobs there are, the less crime there will be in the future. That is the purpose of this amendment, managing the prisons and reducing crime. I would hope we would adopt that goal by allowing prisons to be managed better and reducing crime by adopting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also authorize the Justice Department to acquire products from the Federal Prison Industries on a noncompetitive basis as deemed appropriate by the Attorney General. Along with the Bureau of Prisons, the Attorney General has the responsibility for the safe, productive operation of Federal prisons and should, therefore, have the authority to ensure that all operations under his control are available to be directed to this effort. And insofar as Federal Prison Industries program is concerned, we know it is an effective tool to help the prison operations. This could be a much more realistic option for the Attorney General to ensure against disruption at a prison from the loss of jobs and contracts than the notion in the bill that he would have to declare the prison unmanageable without a particular contract. That is what is in the bill. It is not the wholesale authority for the Attorney General to direct any agency to award all of its FPI contracts, but only as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Attorney General, and it only covers Justice Department agencies. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to create jobs and manage the prisons. That is what this amendment would help the Attorney General do. I hope it would be the body's pleasure to adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.